Apple products are a mainstay on college campuses, from checking iPhones in class, to taking notes (and checking Twitter) on Macbooks to playing music from iTunes during study sessions. Students check the news for the latest update on new features and models from the tech giant. Lately, though, Apple is in the news for a different reason – national security. Apple has been ordered by a California judge to help the FBI unlock the phone of Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino shooters.
Back in December of 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik committed a mass shooting and attempted bombing in a terrorist attack that injured 22 people and left 14 people dead. The two opened fire at a San Bernardino Department of Health training and holiday party. They fled but were pursued and killed by police. This attack prompted response from many in-office politicians as well as from several presidential candidates. Most notably, perhaps, was the reaction of Donald Trump, who called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” until we could “figure out what is going on.” His statement was met with huge backlash, with other candidates calling him “unhinged” and his words “prejudiced and divisive.” The San Bernardino case elicited some strong reactions back in December. And as the FBI continues to work on the case, a recent ruling has sparked a very different but equally divisive argument.
On February 16th, a court ruled that Apple must create a program that will unlock the phone of Farook. His phone is protected with a standard numeric passcode along with the feature that erases the phone’s data after ten incorrect passcode entries. They used a law almost as old as the courts themselves – the All Writs Act from 1789. The clauses, explained in this article from Gizmodo, give the courts permission to issue an order in a situation that isn’t already covered by law. Back then, it was helpful to cover gaps in a brand new system, but today, it has been used mostly to help the courts carry out warrants that are being blocked by something. It isn’t the first time Apple has been made to unlock a phone through this law. In fact, over 70 iPhones have been unlocked because of orders justified through the All Writs Act. This time is different: because of the features enabled on Farook’s phone, Apple would have to write a completely new operating system and install it on the phone to access the data. That’s where the controversy comes in.
In a letter posted on the Apple website, CEO Tim Cook explained the company’s opposition to the order and what it means for national security–and individual rights. Cook said Apple has assisted the FBI so far in their investigation, and that the company has “no sympathy for terrorists.” However, he stated how dangerous this new OS would be should it fall into the hands of others – though the FBI insists it only wants to get the data on the phone of the San Bernardino shooter, Cook says it could be used to unlock any iPhone. He also expressed fear that using the All Writs Act in this way sets a precedent allowing the government to access all data stored on encrypted devices, placing the security of many technology users at risk. He explained what this means for the general public:
Â
“The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.”
Â
Why is this important to us? Almost all college students own a cell phone. Of those who have a phone, over half have smartphones. We use them for nearly everything, all the while amassing huge amounts of personal data – saved passwords, text message records, and images. This data is protected by encryption and a passcode. Though this order is for the phone of a man who committed a terrorist attack, the federal government could use this Act to access data on any device pertinent to an investigation – even if the device does not belong to the one who committed the crime.
Prospects are not good for Apple. Of those 70 times Apple has been compelled to unlock iPhones, only once has that been questioned by a judge. In that case, which can be seen here, Judge James Orenstein questioned the interpretation of the All Writs Act, claiming that asking Apple to help unlock the phone was not simply filling a gap in the laws, but was instead using All Writs to overstep the boundaries of what rights the government had been allowed by Congress. What is more important – personal privacy or national security? As the situation unfolds between Apple and the FBI, that question will be answered. In the meantime, maybe put a sticky note over the webcam on your laptop. Just in case.
Â